Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655947-0000

DATE: 2024-03-01

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

YAN FANG Plaintiff/Defendant to the Counterclaim

– and –

HUI JUN YIN Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Counsel: Dr. Ran He, for the Plaintiff/Defendant to the Counterclaim Shahryar Mazaheri, for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

HEARD: In writing

BEFORE: Papageorgiou J.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Overview

[1] By reasons dated February 14, 2024, I granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff, Yan Fang, against the defendant Hui Jun Yin.

[2] I found that Ms. Fang and Mr. Yin entered into a partnership to develop certain property, that as agreed, Ms. Fang contributed 50 percent to the purchase price and development costs. However, after using Ms. Fang’s money to purchase and renovate the Property, Mr. Yin unilaterally sought to remove her from the Property, claiming that she was a tenant who failed to pay rent. He made complaints to the Landlord and Tenant Board.

[3] He also took steps to intimidate her into leaving and assaulted her on several occasions.

[4] As required by the practice direction, Ms. Fang had submitted a Bill of Costs at the time of the hearing, but Mr. Yin did not.

[5] Ms. Fang claims $29,642.16 on a partial indemnity basis plus disbursements in the amount of $6,772.20.

[6] Mr. Yin’s lawyer argues that there should be no award of costs at this time because I ordered an accounting in respect of partnership accounts and the outcome of this was not yet known. He asserted that Ms. Fang had not been successful on all issues.

[7] However, Mr. Yin has still not provided his own Bill of Costs.

Decision

[8] For the reasons that follow, I am awarding Ms. Fang her full partial indemnity costs in the amount of $29,642.16 plus disbursements in the amount of $6,772.20.

Analysis

[9] Pursuant to s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, costs are in the discretion of the court. Rule 57 of the Rules sets out the factors which courts should have regard to when awarding costs. The overall objective is “to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant”: Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier (2002), 2002 CanLII 25577 (ON CA), 21 C.C.E.L. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4; Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), at para. 26; Clarington (Municipality) v. Blue Circle Canada Inc., 2009 ONCA 722, 100 O.R. (3d) 66, at para. 52; and G.C. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 ONSC 1191, at para. 5.

[10] Even though there will be an accounting, Ms. Fang succeeded on the most significant issue, whether a partnership existed. She also succeeded in demonstrating that Mr. Yin had assaulted her on several occasions in an effort to intimidate her into leaving the property.

[11] Ms. Fang was by far, the most successful party and entitled to costs.

[12] This matter was very important to Ms. Fang as Mr. Yin had taken more than $700,000 from her pursuant to their partnership, used her money to develop the property in question and then sought to deny their agreement altogether. She was a recent immigrant and he had taken advantage of her.

[13] I have reviewed the Bill of Costs which is detailed. The time spent and hourly rate charged are reasonable. The matter was complex, and it is remarkable that Ms. Fang’s costs are as low as they are.

[14] In any event, given Mr. Yin did not provide his own Bill of Costs, he is in no position to argue that the partial indemnity costs claimed are not within his reasonable contemplation.

[15] I commend Ms. Fang’s lawyer, Mr. He, for his contribution to access to justice by stepping up and representing this vulnerable person with such efficient and modest expenditure of costs.

[16] Order to go awarding Ms. Fang $29,642.16 plus disbursements in the amount of $6,772.20 payable within 30 days of this endorsement.

[17] The parties may forward to my attention Orders in respect of both the Judgment and this Costs endorsement.

Papageorgiou J.

Released: March 1, 2024